The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-05-21

etc. Everything that would have been
unworthy the great Jehovah, was at
tributed to the Logos or Messiah. OF |
course he was not yet regarded as the
supreme Deity.
At the present day, it is common to
say that all such language is used in
accommodation to human weakness.
1t is speaking latter the manner of
men," The language is made to accord
with appearances and not with facts.
So far as anger or wrath is concerned,
or any other term expressive of the
feelings or emotions, the explanation,
| it seems to me, is contained in the
word God. The wrath of God must be
such wrath as such Being can con-
sistently cherish or manifest. The
wrath of bad man is very different
from the wrath of a good man. The
words, "Be angry and sin not. Let
not the sun go down upon your wrath"
refer to anger or wrath that is right;
that is not sin. If anger or wrath can
belong to good man, why may it not
belong to God? OF course, the wrath
of God is as much better than the wrath
Of good man, as that of good man is
better than that of bad man. Nay,
this does not express the whole truth.
The one is the wrath of a man; the
other that of God. The one is finite
and imperfect being; the other an in
finite and perfect Being. Wrath is not
an attribute, but feeling or manifesto
ton, and must accord with the attri-
butes of the being that manifests it.
In God it must agree with his infinite
and Interchangeable goodness and love.
When the wrath or anger of God is
spoken of, it will generally be seen
that it is exercised toward those whom
he is seeking to benefit. There is re-
markable passage in Eek. xxi. 1922,
in which God is said to gather his peo-
pie, the Jews, into a furnace, to blow
upon them and melt them, as brass and
iron and tin are melted, in the midst of
the furnace. His anger, wrath and
fury are mentioned. What was the
object Evidently to purify and cleanse
them-to separate the pure metal from
the dross.
This was severe process, no doubt.
but it was justified by the purest be-
nevolence. In the New Testament, it
is said that God so loved the world
that he sent his beloved Son to save it.
He who believed should have eternal
life; but he who believed not should
not see life, ''but the wrath of God abid
eth on him." Here the wrath of God
abides on the same class whom he so
loved as to send his son to save them.
He loved them when they were unbe-
levers; and now his wrath abides on
them because they are unbelievers. If
by wrath is meant punishment, which
will rest upon them only till they be-
come believers, and is designed to make
them such, there is no inconsistency in
| CAC pdoodSOs OGACl WloO ~ 10 SIOooly
inconsistent.
When the love Of God and his wrath
are brought together in the same pas
sage, we may feel sure that the writer
saw no conflict between the two. This
is very evident. 1t is no less evident
when both are applied to the same be-
ing, though not in the same passage.
There is nothing contradictory in the
character of God. He is not divided
against himself. Nor does it make any
difference whether the two things sup
posed to be at variance, are spoken of
in the same passage, or one of them in
the first book of the Bible, and the other
in the last book. There can be no con-
flict between them, so long as both are
ascribed to God.
The trouble is, because we cannot re-
concile the wrath of man with the love
of God, we conclude that the wrath of
God cannot be so reconciled. Such
reasoning is not sound. So long as the
name of God is associated with any
quality or attribute, there must be
something in God answering to it; nor
can any two or more such be at vari-
ance. Nor is this any the less true
because some of us do not see how it
can be. w. Il. NJ.
/